We Need to Ban Semi-Automatic Firearms

Test Ticker

Please support Mother Jones with a year-end donation. The truth is, we're a long way from our $600,000 goal, and we have to get as close as we can by Tuesday so we don't have to make hard decisions come January. If you value our reporting, please consider pitching in today.

$600,000

We still need to raise 400,000: Whether you can give $5 or $500, it all matters.

Please support Mother Jones with a year-end donation. We need to raise $600,000, or get as close as we can, by Tuesday so we don't need to make hard decisions come January. Whether you can give $5 or $500, it all makes a difference.

Mourners in El Paso hold a vigil to honor the victims of Saturday's mass shooting.Roberto E. Rosales/Albuquerque Journal via ZUMA

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

As usual, I don’t have a lot to say about our latest series of mass shootings. I’ll just repeat my standard prescription: the only real answer is to ban semi-automatic firearms. This is obviously not going to happen anytime soon, but it should be the goal. The only way to move public opinion on this issue is to start saying this clearly, loudly, and persistently.

And let’s all forget about the NRA, OK? Sure, they’re a terrible, corrupt organization, but they aren’t the root problem. Public opinion is. There are just too many people in America who like their guns and too few people who feel strongly about getting rid of them. To make a difference, that has to change. Like gay marriage, it will change maybe one percent a year and it will take 20 or 30 years to finally come to fruition. But what other way is there?